Sh. Kartar Singh & Others vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2008 Latest Caselaw 1706 Del

                   HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



                           Crl. Rev. P. 132/2007



                           Date of Decision:- September 23, 2008

        Sh. Kartar Singh & Ors                     ...      Petitioners
                           Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Adv.

                           Versus

        Central Bureau of Investigation            ...      Respondent

                           Through: Mr.Ashiesh Kumar, Adv.


        CORAM:

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA

        1.      Whether reporters of local paper may be
                allowed to see the judgment? Yes
        2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

        3.      Whether the judgment should be referred in
                the Digest? Yes



S. L. BHAYANA, J.

This revision petition is directed against an order on Charge

dated 19.1.2007 by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. By that order

petitioners were charged with commission of offence punishable

under section 498-A Cr.P.C read with section 34 IPC.

2. The facts necessary to decide this revision petition are that the

petitioners herein are in-laws of the deceased/Shobha. The said

Shobha had committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial

home on 01.03.2000, after eight years of her marriage. Her husband

also with whom she got married on 23.1.1991 tragically committed

suicide in the year 2001.

3. The prosecution case is that in the night intervening 1st and 2nd

March 2000, the deceased/Shobha had committed suicide at about

2.00 a.m. by hanging herself from the ceiling of a room in the

matrimonial home. It is the case of the prosecution that after her

marriage, Shobha was being taunted for bringing insufficient dowry

and was being harassed on account thereof. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- is

alleged to have been given by her father few days after her marriage

to her husband/ Mangal Singh. The prosecution also alleges that

Shobha was ill-treated and harassed by the petitioners as she was

not able to give birth to a child and her harassment continued till

1999 when she gave birth to a girl child and since Mangal Singh,

who was paralysed, shortly after the birth of the girl child, the

deceased Shobha was again being taunted that she gave birth to a

girl child which brought bad luck to the petitioners. On the basis of

these allegations, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, ordered to frame

a Charge against the petitioners u/s 498-A IPC.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,

submitted that this is the sum total of the allegations that can be

garnered against the petitioners. He submitted that first of all,

section 498-A IPC is not attracted because there are no allegations of

cruelty as such. He referred to definition of „cruelty‟ as given in the

explanation of section 498-A IPC and submitted that even if all the

statements of witnesses are believed to be true and all documents

collected during investigation are deemed to be proved against the

petitioners, the essential elements of section 498-A IPC are not made

out in this case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of

the State entirely supported the impugned order and submitted that

on the facts of the case the charge has been correctly framed. He

submitted, with reference to the statements of the father of the

deceased/Shri Bhagwan Das, Tarun Thakur, Ramesh Devi, Jaipal,

Smt. Kaushalya, that there was a clear allegation of abusing and

maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of the petitioners. He

submitted that there is a mention of demand of dowry. He submitted

that once there are allegations, which give an indication that offence

under section 498-A IPC are made out then a charge ought to be

framed and it has correctly been framed in this case.

6. I have heard counsel for both the parties. In the present case

there is sufficient material in the form of the statements of the

witnesses recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C pointing out towards

cruelty of the deceased and harassment for the demand of dowry,

torture etc. The end of the girl came on 1.3.2000 and two months

prior to the said incident she informed her parents about the

harassment and demand of dowry. Her parents were not allowed to

meet her. It is alleged in the statement of her father that after two

years of marriage Shobha‟s in laws started demanding dowry, they

used to ill-treat and harass her by calling names like „barren‟ and

„kambakht‟ etc. According to him there is continuous, persistent

harassment and cruelty on one pretext or the other, which has driven

/impelled Shobha to commit suicide. Explanation to section 498-A

IPC provides that any willful conduct, which is of such a nature, as is

likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty.

Such conduct which is likely to cause grave injury or damage to life,

limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman) would also

amount to cruelty. Harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her

to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security

would also constitute cruelty. So far as the offence under section

498-A IPC is concerned, it is not every kind of cruelty which

constitutes an offence under section 498-A IPC, it is difficult to

enumerate acts amounting to cruelty or to put cruel conduct into a

straight jacket formula or to make cruel conduct considerable to any

inflexible standard. Cruelty is not a fact isolated from the

environment and background of the spouses and each case ought to

be decided individually.

7. During the course of investigation, the statements of the

father and some other persons with regard to the allegations of

harassment and cruelty were recorded. Alleged act of maltreatment/

cruelty of the deceased were brought to the notice of the police

during investigation. In his statement, under section 161 of Cr.P.C,

the father of the deceased stated that whenever his daughter used to

come home, she used to complain that her in-laws are harassing her

for dowry. He categorically stated that she informed him that her

father-in-law and mother-in-law have been harassing her and

subjected her to cruelty and at one occasion her father-in-law

demanded two lakh rupees. Can such conduct be termed as „cruelty‟

within the meaning of explanation of section 498-A IPC. In my

opinion, prima facie, these allegations are sufficient for the purpose

of framing a Charge because charge can be framed even where there

is a grave suspicion. The answer to question as to whether the

alleged conduct of the petitioners was sufficient to drive the

deceased for committing suicide would also depend upon

psychological status of the deceased besides the surrounding

circumstances in which she committed suicide which may be proved

by the prosecution during trial.

8. The question as to what consideration should weigh with the

court at the time of considering the question of framing of Charge

under section 227 Cr.P.C has repeatedly engaged the attention of

Apex court on different occasions. It is bromidic that at the stage of

framing of Charge the court is required to evaluate the material and

documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging

there from, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all

the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the

court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the

material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is

a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not

a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that

stage, even strong suspicion founded on material, which leads the

court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual

ingredients constituting the offence, alleged would justify the

framing of Charge against the accused in respect of the commission

of that offence.

9. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489, a

three Judges Bench of Apex Court had observed that at the stage of

framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question

whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of

the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a person's

liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material

warranting such order was emphasized.

10. Then again in State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath

Thapa and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1744, a three judge Bench of

Supreme Court, after noting three pairs of sections viz. (i) Sections

227 and 228 insofar as sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239

and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245(1)

and (2) qua trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of

framing of charge or discharge, stated thus:

"if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."

11. In a later decision in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni AIR 2000

SC 2583, Supreme Court while referring to several previous

decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage

of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The

court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the

materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

12. Again recently in Omwati & Anr Vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507,

the Apex Court while referring to its earlier decision on the point in

the cases of Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. Vs. State of W.B. AIR 2000

SC 522, Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip N. Chartia 1989

(1) SCC 715, State of Bihar vs. Ramesh singh AIR 1977 SC 2018.

Supdt. S. Remembrancer of legal affairs W.B. Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja-

AIR 1989 SC 52 and Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. (1996)9 SCC

766, held that at this stage the truth, veracity and the effect of the

evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be

meticulously judged. The standard of test and judgment which is to

be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or

otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of

framing Charge. Even a strong suspicion on the basis of the material

before it can lead the court to form a presumptive opinion regarding

existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and

in that case, the court will be justified in framing Charge against the

accused. Obviously the consideration, which will weigh with the

court at the stage of final decision of case, will not be the same as

those at the stage of charge.

13. Furthermore, I have come to the conclusion that applying the

guidelines prescribed in UOI Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samals, AIR 1979

SC 366, a prima facie case has been made out for the framing of

charge. She was a young girl of 28 years, had a female child of about

one year for whom she had great love and affection. If everything

was fine then why would she have committed suicide and leave the

child at the mercy of her in-laws? Suicide in normal circumstances is

against the natural course of life.

14. I find no justification in interfering with the impugned order.

15. In the result, this revision petition fails and is dismissed.

16. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.

17. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22nd

October 2008.

September          23, 2008                         S.L. BHAYANA, J.

ss